? about the debate this evening. Mods feel free to move.

[klrv6]

OK, so I'm sitting there with my wife watching this thing and Obama says "But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda."

Full text> Transcript of presidential debate - CNN.com

Now, according to this> History of assassination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which codified a policy first laid down in 1976 by the Ford administration. It stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.""

Does that mean mean Obama would be going directly against policy that Regan signed? Sounds like it to me... This ? isn't about if the US should in fact hunt down and bring bin laden to justice, it's more of the fact that even our next presidents didn't seem too bothered by it. I thought McCain would have pointed out where Obama's statement was wrong. Isn't there something even in the geneva convention against assassinations?

Just looking for an answer to this somewhat political question.

 

[UNGN]

Osama isn't really a government leader and it's not like he hasn't admitted being responsible for 9/11 so killing him technically wouldn't be assassination.

Clinton had the chance to kill bin Ladin after the Cole in 2000, but chose not to pull the trigger, because of collateral damage, not because there was an executive order that stopped him from doing so, and this was pre 9/11.

Executive orders can be overruled by the President, anyway, since they are the ones issuing them.

I think the bigger gaffe from Obama's statement was that he wanted to "stamp out" the Taliban, which many of the Liberals in his party do not want to do.

Killing Osama and Al Queda is fine, but the Taliban "didn't attack us" according to the true moonbat Liberals.

 

[klrv6]

I understand that. It's just when the president of the United States hunts down and kills someone, it seems somewhat hypocritical to how our process works here. They captured Hussein and brought him to trial and then executed him. That's how the process works?

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

really doesn't say if the person being sought is from a government or not.

 

[Pronto]

OBL is our mortal enemy. He is the one responsible for 9/11 and continues to call for attacks on the US. If he could be taken out by a missle then that's fine. If it came down to US troops going after him then I would bet he would go out in blaze of bullets. Either way he is "killed". Maybe Obama should have said "neutralized". As far as Sadam, he was not our mortal enemy, he was wanted by the Iraqi's for capital crimes. They are ones that tried him and hung him, not us.
I believe the assasination that is ment in that is of a head of state. OBL is not head of state of anywhere.
The Taliban has become an extention of al-Qaeda so they are now fair game and do infact need to be stamped out if Afghanistan is going to survive as a democracy.

 

[Blown&Injected]

Is bombing an enemy base an assassination? I doubt we will just put a bullet in his head if he is captured.

I think much of his perceived "power" is due to so many making such a big deal about this one man. Wipe out his ability to act and he is rendered ineffective - he probably loves all the attention